Monday, June 22, 2009

The National Post "Raph"s up another one.

Holding true to its motto of misrepresenting all the news that's fit to print, the Post saves a few bucks by dipping into its pool of excitable, wanky bloggers to tab the one known as "Raphael Alexander," who does to journalism what a couple of banjo players once did to Ned Beatty:

What Ms. Evans said is something very close to my own heart. My own family sacrifices a great deal in order for my wife to stay at home full-time to raise our two young children. Her earning potential is at least as great as mine, and together we could probably afford a home, more savings, more investment, and more long-term security. But we didn’t want to leave our children with people in a daycare, or have their formative years shaped by people hired to look after them. That was a personal decision we made, and we’re happy with the results. Our kids are very well bonded with their mother, and they are very happy and secure.

Gosh, Ralphie, that's an eloquent defense, and it would almost make me feel charitable, except for the fact that it's crap. Evans wasn't simply extolling the virtues of having a stay-at-home parent -- she was explicitly demeaning and denigrating those couples who opted for a different choice. Let me refresh your memory, Raph, you insufferable twit (emphasis towel-smackingly added):

Alberta's Liberal leader is demanding an apology from Finance Minister Iris Evans, who suggested that in order to raise children "properly" one parent should stay at home while the other goes to work...

"They've understood perfectly well that when you're raising children, you don't both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise," Evans said...

See what's happening there, Raph? She's out-and-out dissing those parents who, for whatever reason, might both need to bring home the bacon as it were. Ah, but such distinctions are lost on "Raphael Alexander," who continues his noble defense by, well, lying about what Evans said:

That isn’t to say that we know whether our choice was the right one. That’s the beauty of personal choice; it isn’t a “debate” as Ms. Evans said on Friday when she apologized for starting a controversy with parents arguing what is ultimately best for their kids. The fact is that there is no right answer that would be satisfactory to end such a debate. Nobody knows what the absolute best thing is when raising children, which is why parents often make decisions that they feel is best for them, and for them alone. Nobody else can make the decisions but the parents.

Quite so, Raph -- the beauty of "choice" -- which is precisely what Evans wasn't acknowledging when she slagged one choice while praising another. And, sadly, "Raphael" continues his eye-rolling dumbassitude right to the very end of his journalistically fecal-smeared contribution to public discourse by yammering on about the beauty of "choice" that Evans never uttered:

My wife deserves the freedom of choice to raise our children in the way Ms. Evans spoke of, and doesn’t have an obligation to answer to anyone but the needs of her family.

That would be such an eloquent and touching finish, Raph, if it were not for the fact that you're full of shit and are carefully avoiding what Evans actually said. But let's not be too hard on "Raphael." This is, after all, the National Post, and we all know what that means. Journalistic integrity optional. Or just plain discouraged.

Any opinion that doesn't parrot the twisted ideology of the left is condoned as intolerant. On the upside we've seen how the minority leftwingers respect free speech, they don't if you espouse something that doesn't 'mirror their twisted dogma of "It takes a village to raise a child". Of course they never asked society if we wanted to be burdened with their brats.

And by "twisted ideology of the left," I believe Sassylassie means "basic literacy." But that's just a guess.

LET THE FUN BEGIN: Why, yes, I did leave that comment that just appeared on that Full Comment piece. Now let's watch how quickly its contents are distorted and misrepresented, and how quickly the strawmen are dragged out and flayed mercilessly. You know it's coming.

WELL, THAT DIDN'T LAST LONG: It was up and, less than five minutes later, it was gone. Not quite the journalistic profile in courage you were looking for, was it?

I don't see a problem. Do you see a problem?

OH, WAIT ... suddenly it's back. I see massive entertainment value in all of this.

18 comments:

My mother, who literally escaped an abusive, alcoholic father was never given the "choice" Evans and Raph speak of. Apparently that made her a bad mother. And all of my relatives and neighbours who helped her out while she was working by watching out for my brother ans sister and eye, were commies I suppose.

The only ones with a "twisted ideology" and an idea of fantasy are Evans and Raph.

Oh and before the righties get their panties in a huff, my wife stays home to care for our children because she choose to. We cab afford it because of the way my single mother raised me, so that now I earn 6 figures. Of course we realize not everyone has those opportunities or can make those choices and it doesn't affect the quality of parenting they have.

Many of my neighbours are great parents and both work and send their kids to daycare. I know relatives who are such poor parents I wouldn't leave my kids with them in order to go take a leak...and the mother stays home.

In order to raise children "properly" BOTH parents should stay at home.

If Evans was speaking about the "ideal" as she is now claiming, would not both parents at home be better and more proper? If not, should we require that one parent stay away from the home on weekends and in the evening?

What I find most tedious about those vocal in supporting the ideal of a stay-at-home parent is that they turn around and almost in the same breath, dismiss all the policies that make it possible for that to be an affordable choice. So you're not going to see these people support living wages, or affordable housing or labour rights or good public transit, or anything like that.

Again, all of this is the confusion of an economic issue with a moral one, just for the sake of being able to be condescending and self-righteous.

Shorter Raph: "Aren't I a wonderful, selfless, self-sacrificing parent?" We'll see. Obviously, his own parents were lousy at it, so I don't hold out much hope.

I'm glad "Sassylassie" there, day in, day out, shrieking and shrieking and shrieking about liberals and lefties and commies. Reminds me of another reason why I won't read The National Post...I don't want to be associated with its audience.

I live in Vancouver and if Ruffles is trying to raise a family on a single income, then he is either raising them in a crackhouse or a house about to become victim to a mudslide. Rent is just too high in this city for him to do that when he claimed he moved here.